I'm the first one to admit the test gear cannot measure everything, only static measurements are available, not dynamic nor anything that uses a complex music waveform as the stimulus. In other words, we use different stuff than music to measure musical equipment. If you only listen to sine and square waves then you are probably covered by Agilent and Audio Precision.

Like any racing performance car you will need to take it off the dynometer and put that sucker out on the track and figure the rest out. Listening sessions are that track for audio gear.

The Doubting Thoms here can usually be placed into the category of "not experienced" with this stuff. Expressing opinions of stuff you have not used is questionable at best.

I'm the first one to admit the test gear cannot measure everything, only static measurements are available, not dynamic nor anything that uses a complex music waveform as the stimulus. In other words, we use different stuff than music to measure musical equipment...

Exactly. Published specs can certainly weed out underperforming devices. Beyond that one shouldn't try to interpret more than the specs do or don't reveal. Even though Pueblo Audio preamps have exceptional specs, for years I avoided publishing any because I knew they wouldn't really provide users complete insight as to how a device would actually sound. Does a 0.001% THD preamp or cable actually sound worse than a 0.0001% device? As Jim said, that single measurement is ONLY at 1kHz and ONLY at +4dBu. Hardly comprehensive.

One should not put to much stock into how a +4dBu, 1kHz sine wave THD measures when music has 19,999 other frequencies of concern at many other dynamic levels. A more thorough and informative measurement for quality might be to perform intermodulation distortion tests for every frequency combo within the human hearing range.
That would only take 20k x 20k = 400 Million measurements! Anybody game?

Or, just get the device in question in your hands and listen with care under actual recording situations. Any benefit a device might bring should be apparent within your normal recording practices. You'll know whether it is or isn't worth the $$$.

Snake Oil Salesman: One who sells a product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. (Webster's Dictionary)

Placebo Effect: An effect produced by a placebo, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to belief in that placebo. (Collins Dictionary)

Zealot: One whose views are very extreme, especially in following a particular belief. (Webster's Dictionary)

BS Artist: BS artists can fabricate a series of statements, which cannot easily be disproved, to conceal their real intentions or justify past behavior. They also use clever language, such as euphemisms and weasel words to hide the real meaning, or create false meaning, in what they are saying. BS Artists often use their talent to BS people out of their money. (Urban Dictionary)

Sucker: a gullible or easily deceived person. (Google)

Any of the above sound familiar to those following this "debate" about wire?

That is the single best explanation of intangible characteristics in audio gear that I have ever heard.

And my bit of time using Pueblo amps definitely gives your words weight

I am tempted to take the bait, re; a more comprehensive testing regimen, if only to see if I can find any objective patterns.

Thank you for your words!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuebloAudio

Exactly. Published specs can certainly weed out underperforming devices. Beyond that one shouldn't try to interpret more than the specs do or don't reveal. Even though Pueblo Audio preamps have exceptional specs, for years I avoided publishing any because I knew they wouldn't really provide users complete insight as to how a device would actually sound. Does a 0.001% THD preamp or cable actually sound worse than a 0.0001% device? As Jim said, that single measurement is ONLY at 1kHz and ONLY at +4dBu. Hardly comprehensive.

One should not put to much stock into how a +4dBu, 1kHz sine wave THD measures when music has 19,999 other frequencies of concern at many other dynamic levels. A more thorough and informative measurement for quality might be to perform intermodulation distortion tests for every frequency combo within the human hearing range.
That would only take 20k x 20k = 400 Million measurements! Anybody game?

Or, just get the device in question in your hands and listen with care under actual recording situations. Any benefit a device might bring should be apparent within your normal recording practices. You'll know whether it is or isn't worth the $$$.

Snake Oil Salesman: One who sells a product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. (Webster's Dictionary)

Placebo Effect: An effect produced by a placebo, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to belief in that placebo. (Collins Dictionary)

Zealot: One whose views are very extreme, especially in following a particular belief. (Webster's Dictionary)

BS Artist: BS artists can fabricate a series of statements, which cannot easily be disproved, to conceal their real intentions or justify past behavior. They also use clever language, such as euphemisms and weasel words to hide the real meaning, or create false meaning, in what they are saying. BS Artists often use their talent to BS people out of their money. (Urban Dictionary)

Sucker: a gullible or easily deceived person. (Google)

Any of the above sound familiar to those following this "debate" about wire?

But....Collins Dictionary doesn't null with Webster's Dictionary...so we can immediately dismiss these summaries as invalid

You're just setting up a smoke screen in an attempt to confirm your contention.

You are ignoring the thousands of users that hear the improvements. Good AE's always investigate possible improvements to their work. Apparently you are far more comfortable drawing conclusions to matters in which you have no personal experience.

Weasel Words: an informal term for words and phrases such as "researchers believe,” "most people think,” and “some people say” which make arguments appear specific or meaningful, even though these terms are at best ambiguous and vague. (Wikipedia)

You are ignoring the thousands of users that hear the improvements. Good AE's always investigate possible improvements to their work. Apparently you are far more comfortable drawing conclusions to matters in which you have no personal experience.

Weasel Words: an informal term for words and phrases such as "researchers believe,” "most people think,” and “some people say” which make arguments appear specific or meaningful, even though these terms are at best ambiguous and vague. (Wikipedia)

Look at you, appealing to rhetoric without engaging with ANY of the testing, articles or listening tests provided in this thread while using the middle school debate club tactic of "webster's dictionary defines". Even in middle school, it's a lazy way of debating, you should be able to use your own words to talk about something you actually understand, but as an adult talking amongst professionals who either build and operate world-class equipment, or both, it clearly exposes you.
And let me tell you- I see you.

Or, just get the device in question in your hands and listen with care under actual recording situations. Any benefit a device might bring should be apparent within your normal recording practices. You'll know whether it is or isn't worth the $$$.

This is, absolutely, the sanest approach to the question I have seen in this thread. Try it if you want. See if you can hear (?) any difference. Make a choice to buy or not buy. Done!

I'm late to this fight lol. Why dismiss something you havent tried or couldn't hear a difference? Don't bother spending money if you don't think it's worth it but don't dismiss this stuff as snake oil. This game is not for everybody. A lot of award winning engineers and studios use Vovox,Grimm,Van Damme,Sommer. Spending $$$$$ for cables that wouldn't make a slight difference? Sure.....

A lot of award winning engineers and studios use Vovox,Grimm,Van Damme,Sommer. Spending $$$$$ for cables that wouldn't make a slight difference? Sure.....

It is likely that the only case of these people using these cables that you are aware of are those that promote the cables. Which in most cases (perhaps all) are getting COMPED these cables. In other words, they don't pay for them.

Look at you, appealing to rhetoric without engaging with ANY of the testing, articles or listening tests provided in this thread while using the middle school debate club tactic of "webster's dictionary defines". Even in middle school, it's a lazy way of debating, you should be able to use your own words to talk about something you actually understand, but as an adult talking amongst professionals who either build and operate world-class equipment, or both, it clearly exposes you.
And let me tell you- I see you.

Comparing cables and preamps is ridiculous. Preamps are electrically different at frequencies known to be audible, they're gonna measure and sound different (though you can't tell "how" they sound by looking at the measurements).

I believe that few have answered the OP's question...repeated above...and instead choose to use this thread as the "venom, rhetoric, hot air, bile and spleen outlet", for their fragile, inflamed egos and chronically under-nourished powers of discernment and analysis.

So be it...as a repository for all that negativity, it serves a purpose...purely as a blind appendix, leading nowhere....an enduring record of pointlessness.

For the OP's information, I use Canare, Mogami, Sommer and Belden for the purposes listed by evisto: in no particular order of precedence or significance, and largely because they satisfy my criteria of good construction, field-recording longevity and sufficient performance specs.

Comparing cables and preamps is ridiculous. Preamps are electrically different at frequencies known to be audible, they're gonna measure and sound different (though you can't tell "how" they sound by looking at the measurements).

Pueblo Audio also said it: Comprehensive audio test gear has not been invented yet. AP is good stuff but it will never tell you how something sounds, it only finds measurable errors.

Like I mentioned before, I did extensive tests on audio cables with my AP and found no measurable differences, yet each sounds different. Ray Kimber found those differences at much higher frequencies than the 200k hz bandwidth of the Audio Precision analyzer. The Agilent network analyzer measures up to 50mhz. I used those devices doing consulting work for Hasbro, they are amazing pieces.

We know a lot but we don't know everything. That's what floats my boat here every morning, discovery. Some people are innately curious, some are not.

And on topic, I use pretty much whatever is available for balanced signals, but I do use GAC-3 for my main pair/array, not because it sounds any different, but for the documented improvements in RF immunity.

On topic: Mogami AES for most (even for non AES3 uses) studio wiring, Mogami Neglex for location mic cabling along with Mogami AES depending on situation, Belden 9182 for my monitoring (mostly because I made them myself with the large Neutrik bushings/strain relief), Canare for all the BNC/Wordclock/AES3id wiring.